Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 12831 

Title of Collection: Foreign Institution 

Reporting Requirements under the 

CARES Act. 

OMB Control Number: 1845–NEW. 

Type of Review: New ICR. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments; Private 

Sector. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 104. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 52. 

Abstract: The Department of 

Education (the Department) is 

requesting a new information collection, 

1845–NEW, Foreign Institution 

Reporting Requirements under the 

CARES Act, be made available for full 

clearance with public comment. Section 

3510(a) of the CARES Act, Public Law 

116–136 (March 27, 2020), authorized 

the Secretary of Education (Secretary) to 

permit a foreign institution, in the case 

of a public health emergency, major 

disaster or emergency, or national 

emergency declared by the applicable 

government authorities in the country in 

which the foreign institution is located, 

to provide any part of an otherwise 

eligible program to be offered via 

distance education for the duration of 

such emergency or disaster and the 

following payment period for purposes 

of title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.). 

Additionally, under section 3510(d) of 

the CARES Act, the Secretary may allow 

a foreign institution to enter into a 

written arrangement with an institution 

of higher education located in the 

United States that participates in the 

Federal Direct Loan Program under part 

D of title IV of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for the 

purpose of allowing a student of the 

foreign institution who is a borrower of 

a loan made under such part to take 

courses from the institution of higher 

education located in the United States. 

The CARES Act requires foreign 

institutions that use either type of 

authority described above to report such 

use to the Secretary. Institutions are 

required to report use of either distance 

education or written arrangements to 

the Department no later than 30 days 

after it begins offering coursework 

online to Direct Loan recipients. The 

Department must also collect specific 

information from a school that requests 

a waiver in order to determine if the 

school is eligible to receive the waiver. 

On May 12, 2020, Federal Student Aid, 

an Office of the Department, notified 

foreign institutions of the new authority 

and requested that any foreign 

institution who wished to utilize this 

new authority to respond with 

information specified in the email. This 

information collection was discontinued 

following the discontinuation of the 

national COVID–19 emergency status. 

However, due to other global situations 

we are now requesting a new collection 

to allow for the on-going use of the 

CARES Act waiver. 

Dated: February 13, 2024. 

Kun Mullan, 

PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and 

Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division, 

Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03341 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration 

Record of Decision for the Final SiteWide Environmental Impact Statement 

for Continued Operation of the 

Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory 

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), a 

semi-autonomous agency within the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is 

issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) 

for the Final Site-Wide Environmental 

Impact Statement (SWEIS) for 

Continued Operation of the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

in California (Final LLNL SWEIS) (DOE/ 

EIS–0547). NNSA prepared the Final 

LLNL SWEIS to analyze the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

reasonable alternatives for continuing 

LLNL operations and foreseeable new 

and/or modified operations and 

facilities for approximately the next 15 

years. The SWEIS analyzes two 

alternatives: No-Action Alternative and 

Proposed Action. In this ROD, NNSA 

announces its decision to implement the 

Proposed Action. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this ROD or the 

LLNL SWEIS, contact: Thomas Grim, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Document Manager, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, 

Livermore Field Office, P.O. Box 808, 

Livermore, CA 94551; via email at 

LLNLSWEIS@nnsa.doe.gov, or by phone 

at (833)778–0508. This ROD, the LLNL 

SWEIS, and related NEPA documents 

are available at www.energy.gov/nnsa/ 

nnsa-nepa-reading-room. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NNSA is responsible for meeting 

the national security requirements 

established by the President and 

Congress to maintain and enhance the 

safety, reliability, and performance of 

the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The 

continued operation of LLNL is critical 

to NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and 

Management Program, to prevent the 

spread and use of nuclear weapons 

worldwide, and to many other areas that 

may impact national security and global 

stability (50 U.S.C. 2521). 

LLNL is a federally funded research 

and development center that conducts 

research for the U.S. Government in 

accordance with 48 CFR 35.017. LLNL 

has been in existence since 1952, 

employs approximately 8,000 people 

(employees and contractors), and has a 

current annual budget of approximately 

$3 billion. 

LLNL consists of two federally owned 

sites: an 821-acre site in Livermore, 

California (Livermore Site), and a 7,000- 

acre experimental test site (Site 300) 

southeast of the Livermore Site between 

Livermore and Tracy, California. Most 

LLNL operations are located at the 

Livermore Site, which is situated about 

50 miles east of San Francisco in 

southeastern Alameda County. Site 300 

is primarily a test site for high 

explosives and non-nuclear weapons 

components; it is located about 15 miles 

southeast of Livermore in the hills of the 

Diablo Range. LLNL’s primary 

responsibility is ensuring the safety, 

reliability, and performance of the 

nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. 

However, LLNL’s mission is broader 

than stockpile stewardship, as dangers 

ranging from nuclear proliferation and 

terrorism to biosecurity and climate 

change threaten national security and 

global stability. More than eighteen (18) 

years have passed since the publication 

of the 2005 Final Site-wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Continued Operation of Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory and 

Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship 

and Management Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (2005 

LLNL SWEIS). Because of proposed 

plans for new facilities, demolition of 

older facilities, enhanced and 

modernized site utilities projects, as 

well as needed modifications/upgrades 

of existing facilities to ensure ongoing 

safe operations, NNSA determined that 

it was appropriate to update the 

previous 2005 LLNL SWEIS analysis. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

NNSA would continue current facility 

operations throughout LLNL in support 

of assigned missions. The No-Action 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
12832 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 

Alternative includes previously 

approved construction of new facilities; 

modernization, upgrade, and utility 

projects; and decontamination, 

decommission, and demolition (DD&D) 

of excess and aging facilities. 

The Proposed Action in the 2023 

Final LLNL SWEIS includes an increase 

in current facility operations or 

enhanced operations that would require 

new or modified facilities over the next 

15 years. The Proposed Action also 

includes the scope of operations, facility 

construction, and DD&D under the NoAction Alternative through 2022. 

Continued re-investment would allow 

LLNL to meet mission deliverables and 

sustain science, technology, and 

engineering excellence to meet future 

mission requirements. In addition to the 

No-Action Alternative, the Proposed 

Action includes approximately 75 new 

projects, totaling approximately 3.3 

million square feet, from 2023–2035. 

NNSA also proposes 20 types of 

modernization/upgrade/utility projects, 

most involving several facilities. Under 

the Proposed Action, about 150 

facilities, totaling approximately 

1,170,000 square feet would undergo 

DD&D. The Proposed Action also 

includes operational changes that would 

increase the tritium emissions limits in 

the National Ignition Facility (NIF) 

(Building 581) and the Tritium Facility 

(Building 331), and decrease the 

administrative limit for fuels-gradeequivalent plutonium in the Superblock 

(Building 332). In addition, the 

Proposed Action increases the 

administrative limits for plutonium-239 

at Building 235, and increases the NIF 

administrative limits for plutonium-239 

and tritium. The administrative limit 

changes for both Building 235 and the 

NIF would maintain the existing facility 

characterization of ‘‘less than Hazard 

Category-3’’ in accordance with DOE 

Standard (DOE–STD–1027) revisions 

approved for use at LLNL. 

NEPA Process for This ROD 

NNSA has prepared this ROD in 

accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, as 

amended), regulations promulgated by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). This ROD is based on Federal law 

and NNSA’s mission, and information 

and analysis in the Final LLNL SWEIS 

including public comments received. 

The Draft LLNL SWEIS was distributed 

electronically for review and comment 

as part of the public participation 

process. During the comment period, 

NNSA held two in-person hearings and 

one virtual hearing to receive comments 

on the Draft LLNL SWEIS. At the inperson hearings, an open house 

preceded the formal public comment 

period. During the open house, the 

public was invited to engage with 

NNSA personnel within their areas of 

expertise and ask questions about the 

Draft SWEIS. The in-person and virtual 

hearings were attended by 

approximately 70 persons and 29 

speakers provided comments. These 

comments were recorded in formal 

transcripts. In addition to the comments 

during the public hearings, 

approximately 84 comment documents 

(including 41 comment documents 

submitted as an email campaign) were 

received from individuals, interested 

groups, and Federal, State, and local 

agencies during the comment period on 

the Draft LLNL SWEIS. 

The majority of the comments 

received on the Draft SWEIS focused on 

the NEPA process, policy issues, and 

the scope of the Proposed Action. Scans 

of those comment documents are 

located in Volume 3 (Comment 

Response Document [CRD]) of the Final 

LLNL SWEIS. In addition, comments 

from the three public hearings are 

included in the scanned transcripts, 

which are also located in Volume 3. All 

comments received were treated equally 

by NNSA. Chapter 2 of Volume 3 

contains summaries of all comments 

received on the LLNL Draft SWEIS as 

well as NNSA’s responses to those 

comments. After considering all 

comments and modifying the Draft 

SWEIS, NNSA completed the Final 

LLNL SWEIS. NNSA posted the Final 

LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA 

Reading Room website 

(www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsa-nepareading-room) and published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register (88 

FR 75566, November 3, 2023). Hard 

copies of the Final LLNL SWEIS were 

delivered to the City of Livermore and 

Tracy public libraries. During the 30- 

day period after the Notice of 

Availability, NNSA received 24 

comment documents related to the Final 

LLNL SWEIS. This ROD includes 

NNSA’s responses to those comments. 

Summary of Impacts 

Brief summaries of impacts are 

provided below for each resource area: 

Land Use: At the Livermore Site total 

land disturbance would be 85.5 acres. 

About 26.5 acres of land would be 

reclaimed as a result of DD&D; 2.5 acres 

restored for cooling tower pipeline; and 

4 acres of laydown areas would also be 

restored. Net change in land disturbance 

would be 52.5 acres. Removal of limited 

area fencing, expanded bicycle network, 

expanded pedestrian walkways, 

rebalanced vehicle parking, and Lake 

Haussmann enhancements would create 

more green space by 2035. At Site 300, 

land disturbance would be 36 acres, and 

0.4 acres of land would be reclaimed as 

a result of DD&D, and 1 acre of laydown 

areas would be restored. Net change in 

land disturbance would be 34.6 acres. 

Operations would be consistent with 

current land use designations and 

historic uses of LLNL land. 

Aesthetics and Scenic Resources: 

Construction activities would result in 

temporary changes to the visual 

appearance of both sites due to the 

presence of cranes, construction 

equipment, demolition, facilities in 

various stages of construction/DD&D, 

and possibly increased dust. The 

Livermore Site would remain highly 

developed with a campus-style or 

business park appearance. Changes at 

Site 300 would occur in the site interior 

and would be consistent with the 

existing character of the site. 

Geology and Soils: Soil disturbances 

would be minimal; no prime farmland 

exists. Ongoing remediation efforts 

would continue to improve soil 

conditions at both sites. Major regional 

faults exist, but no active faults underlie 

the sites. There is no historical record of 

surface rupturing or faulting, although 

there is potential for surface faulting at 

Site 300. Any new facility would be 

designed and constructed to meet 

seismic design criteria commensurate 

with the risk category requirements. 

Potential impacts from geologic hazards 

(i.e., seismic events) are discussed 

under ‘‘Accidents.’’ 

Water Resources: New facilities 

would increase impervious surfaces, 

which could increase stormwater runoff. 

LLNL meets stormwater compliance 

monitoring requirements and 

implementation of a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan would 

minimize any pollution that might leave 

the site by stormwater. Ongoing 

remediation efforts would continue to 

improve groundwater conditions at both 

sites. In accordance with 10 CFR part 

1022, the DOE/NNSA prepared an 

appendix to provide an analysis of the 

potential impacts on floodplains and 

wetlands from the No-Action 

Alternative and Proposed Action. The 

New North Entry would be located in 

the north buffer zone and could 

potentially affect floodplains. The 

roadway for the New North Entry would 

cross approximately 0.9 acres 

(approximately 2 percent) of the 500- 

year floodplain (critical action 

floodplain) in the north buffer zone and 

approximately 0.1 acres (approximately 

0.4 percent) of the 100-year floodplain 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 12833 

(base floodplain) along Arroyo Las 

Positas. The proposed bridge would 

span the Arroyo Las Positas and the 

roadway would continue through 

previously developed land onto the 

Livermore Site. The New Fire Station, if 

located near the North Entry, could 

disturb approximately 0.7 acres 

(approximately 1.6 percent) of the 500- 

year floodplain (critical action 

floodplain) but would not disturb any 

acres of the 100-year floodplain (base 

floodplain). The enhancements in Lake 

Haussmann would not involve wetlands 

or affect impoundment-waters. Even 

with enhancements, Lake Haussmann 

would continue to serve as a 

conveyance channel. 

Air Quality: Fugitive dust would be 

generated during clearing, grading, and 

other earth-moving operations. 

Construction and operational emissions 

would not: (1) result in a considerable 

net increase (i.e., greater than the de 

minimis thresholds) of any criteria 

pollutant for which the project region is 

non-attainment; (2) expose sensitive 

receptors to substantial pollutant 

concentrations; (3) conflict with or 

obstruct implementation of the 

applicable air quality plan; or (4) violate 

any air quality standard or contribute 

substantially to an existing or projected 

air quality violation. Greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions would increase by 

approximately 5,239 metric tons 

annually compared to the No-Action 

Alternative. These GHG emissions 

associated with the Proposed Action 

would represent 0.03 percent of the 

State of California GHG emissions. 

Radiological air emissions of tritium at 

the Livermore Site were estimated to be 

3,610 curies based on emissions limits. 

There would be minimal radiological air 

emissions at Site 300. Impacts 

associated with radiological air 

emissions are addressed in ‘‘Human 

Health and Safety.’’ The estimated 

annual dose to the maximally exposed 

individual (MEI) at the Livermore Site 

and Site 300 would remain well below 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) limit of 10 millirem 

per year. 

Noise: Although construction and 

DD&D activities would cause temporary 

noise impacts, most activities would be 

confined to areas more than 500 feet 

from the site property boundaries. Six 

projects at the Livermore Site and four 

at Site 300 would be constructed within 

500 feet of a site boundary. However, 

offsite noise impacts would be minimal. 

Explosive testing noise impacts at Site 

300 would be the same as for the NoAction Alternative. Explosive testing 

conducted at the Contained Firing 

Facility and on open firing tables at Site 

300 would be unchanged when 

compared to current operations. 

Additionally, with regard to explosive 

testing, LLNL would maintain its selfimposed 126 dB impulse noise limits for 

offsite populated areas. 

Biological Resources: The net land 

disturbance would be 52.5 acres 

(Livermore Site) and 34.6 acres (Site 

300). Construction would have no 

appreciable impact on native vegetation, 

plant species of concern, wetlands or 

waters of the United States, viability of 

federally or state-listed species, or 

modification of United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service-designated critical 

habitat. Construction is not expected to 

result in adverse modification of 

USFWS-designated critical habitat at the 

Livermore Site or Site 300. Operations 

would be consistent with current 

activities and would have no 

appreciable impact on biological 

resources. Potential impacts from 

projects at the Livermore Site, Site 300, 

and the Arroyo Mocho Pumping Station 

would be minimized by conservation 

measures, which would be developed 

and implemented in consultation with 

regulatory agencies. 

Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources: The probability of impacting 

archaeological resources would be low 

because any ground disturbing activities 

would be reviewed for the potential for 

effects prior to permit approval. 

Archaeological and pre-historic sites 

have been identified and recorded and 

would continue to be avoided. Because 

fossils and/or fossil remains have been 

discovered at both sites, any excavations 

have the potential to impact similar 

fossils/fossil remains. Both sites have 

undergone a comprehensive review to 

identify significant historic buildings, 

structures, and objects, and those that 

were determined eligible for the 

National Register have already been 

mitigated and are no longer eligible. The 

2012 comprehensive review of 

architectural resources included those 

resources constructed prior to 1990. 

Therefore, buildings, structures, and 

objects that were built after 1990 and 

thus were not part of that 

comprehensive review may become 

eligible for listing on the National 

Register. An updated comprehensive 

review is planned consistent with the 

evaluation approach to identify 

significant (post-1990) historic 

buildings, structures, and objects, that 

was followed in 2007 and 2012. 

Socioeconomics: Socioeconomic 

impacts associated with construction 

would be temporary and lower than 

operational impacts. Once steady-state 

operations are reached in 2035, 

employment at LLNL is projected to 

increase to 10,750 workers (10,344 

workers at the Livermore Site and 406 

workers at Site 300). This would 

represent an increase of 1,410 workers 

over the No-Action Alternative 

workforce, resulting in an estimated 860 

indirect jobs in the four-county region of 

influence (ROI) workforce. Due to the 

low potential for impacts on the ROI 

population, operations by 2035 would 

not affect fire protection, police 

protection services, or medical services. 

The number of school-age children 

associated with the additional 

workforce potentially migrating into the 

ROI would be 908 children. The 

increase in school enrollment would 

represent 0.1 percent of the projected 

2034–2035 school enrollment for the 

ROI. This minimal increase in school 

enrollment would have a negligible 

effect on school services in the ROI. 

Environmental Justice: No high and 

adverse impacts from construction and 

operation activities at LLNL are 

expected. Consequently, there would be 

no disproportionate and adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income 

populations. For routes involving offsite 

shipments, modeling of all 888 potential 

offsite shipments would yield a 

bounding collective incident-free dose 

to the general public of 24.7 person-rem, 

with an associated increased risk of 

0.015 latent cancer fatalities (LCF). 

Impacts to the minority and low-income 

populations along these routes would be 

a fraction of the LCF risk presented 

above and would not result in 

disproportionate and adverse impacts to 

minority or low-income populations. 

Traffic and Transportation: By 2035, 

employment at LLNL is projected to 

increase by 1,410 workers over the NoAction Alternative workforce. If all 

1,410 workers were to commute to the 

Livermore Site (which is a bounding 

assumption for the transportation 

analysis), local traffic would increase by 

an average of approximately 2.3 percent 

(note: traffic on specific roads in the 

vicinity of the Livermore Site would 

increase by 1.6—3.2 percent). The 

increase in traffic would not affect the 

level-of-service on roads in the vicinity 

of LLNL. The New North Entry to the 

Livermore Site is expected to be 

operational in approximately 2025. This 

site entry would reduce the average 

daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Vasco 

Road and Greenville Road and increase 

the ADT volume on Patterson Pass Road 

in the vicinity of the Livermore Site. 

The net effect would be a reduction in 

traffic backups and delays in the 

mornings on Vasco Road at the West 

Gate entrance. 

Radiological and Hazardous Material 

Transportation: As a result of increased 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
12834 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 

operations and nonroutine shipments of 

low-level radioactive waste (LLW)/ 

mixed LLW (MLLW) associated with 

DD&D, there could be more total 

shipments of radiological materials for 

the Proposed Action compared to the 

No-Action Alternative. Modeling all 888 

potential offsite shipments results in 

dose to transport-crews of 69.2 personrem per year (0.042 LCFs); incident-free 

dose to the general public of 24.7 

person-rem (0.015 LCFs); accident risk 

to public of 2.9 × 10¥6 LCFs; and 0.038 

traffic fatalities from accidents. 

Infrastructure: Electricity use, natural 

gas use, potable water use, and 

wastewater generation are all projected 

to increase at both sites. The onsite 

distribution systems and the capacities 

of utility providers are not expected to 

be adversely impacted, however any 

increase in water use at LLNL would 

add to overall water demands and 

supply issues in the region. NNSA will 

continue to evaluate the feasibility and 

implementation of water and energy 

conservation measures at LLNL. 

Waste Management and Materials 

Management: Operations (including 

construction and DD&D) would generate 

a variety of wastes (including 

radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and 

sanitary) and would increase as a result 

of normal operations. NNSA does not 

expect additional waste associated with 

the Proposed Action to be unique or 

substantially different from the types of 

waste already managed within LLNL, 

although a larger proportion of DD&D 

waste and construction debris is 

expected. Although there could be 

higher quantities of hazardous materials 

used under the Proposed Action, NNSA 

does not expect additional adverse 

impacts from managing these materials. 

Human Health and Safety: During 

normal operations, facilities at LLNL 

would release small quantities of 

radioactive emissions to the 

environment. In addition, skyshine from 

the NIF would provide a dose to a 

person standing at a public location 

outside the fence line. The MEI dose 

from the emissions and skyshine would 

be 4.21 millirem per year, resulting in 

an annual LCF risk of 0.0000025. This 

is below the USEPA limit of 10 millirem 

per year. As a comparison, background 

radiation is 625 millirem per year. With 

regard to workers, the average annual 

dose to a radiological worker was 

estimated to be 173.5 millirem per year. 

This would result in an annual LCF risk 

of 1 × 10¥4 (i.e., approximately 1 LCF 

every 9,000 years). 

Site Contamination and Remediation: 

Remediation of groundwater and soil 

contamination at both the Livermore 

Site and Site 300 would continue. 

NNSA complies with provisions 

specified in the two Federal Facility 

Agreements (FFA) entered into by 

USEPA, DOE, the California EPA 

Department of Health Services (now 

Department of Toxic Substances 

Control), and the San Francisco Bay and 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality 

Control Board. Any future remediation 

actions would be conducted in 

accordance with the FFA, and NNSA 

did not propose any specific changes to 

future remediation activities in the 

SWEIS. 

Accidents: NNSA analyzed 

radiological, chemical, high explosives, 

and biological accidents that could be 

caused by events such as explosions, 

fires, aircraft crashes, criticalities, and 

earthquakes. None of the accidents 

evaluated would cause a fatality to a 

member of the public, with the 

exception of an aircraft crash into 

Building 625, which could cause a 

population dose of 4,300 person-rem 

within a 50-mile radius of the site (2.6 

LCFs). Because that accident has an 

annual probability of occurring of 

approximately 6.3 × 10¥7, the risks of 

an LCF from such an accident would be 

1.6 × 10¥6 (i.e., 1 LCF every 610,000 

years). 

Intentional Destructive Acts (IDA): 

NNSA prepared a Security Risk 

Assessment (SRA) that analyzed 

potential impacts of intentional 

destructive acts at LLNL (e.g., sabotage, 

terrorism). The SRA contains sensitive 

information related to security concerns 

and is not publicly releasable. The IDA 

impacts and the SWEIS accident 

impacts have similar consequences for 

radioactive materials dispersal, 

criticality events, chemicals, and 

biological events. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Considering the many environmental 

facets of the two alternatives analyzed 

in the LLNL SWEIS, and with 

consideration to the long-term effects, 

the No-Action Alternative is the 

environmentally preferred alternative 

because fewer adverse impacts would 

result compared to the Proposed Action. 

However, the No-Action Alternative 

would not meet the purpose and need 

for agency action. 

Comments on the Final LLNL SWEIS 

NNSA posted the Final LLNL SWEIS 

on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room 

website (www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsanepa-reading-room) and published a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register (88 FR 75566, November 3, 

2023). Hard copies of the Final LLNL 

SWEIS were delivered to the City of 

Livermore and Tracy public libraries. 

During the 30-day period after the 

Notice of Availability, NNSA received 

23 comment documents related to the 

Final LLNL SWEIS. Of those 23 

documents, 19 were part of an email 

campaign and contained the same 

comments. Four (4) unique documents 

with comments were received. All of the 

comment documents received are 

included in the Administrative Record 

for the LLNL SWEIS NEPA process. As 

indicated below, NNSA considered all 

of the comments contained in these 

documents during the preparation of 

this ROD, and provides the following 

comment-responses: 

1. Commenters stated that NNSA 

inadequately responded to comments on 

the Draft SWEIS requesting additional 

alternatives and stated that the Final 

SWEIS failed to analyze any of the 

reasonable alternatives proposed by 

commenters, such as expansion of 

LLNL’s focus on climate change 

adaptation and amelioration 

technologies, nuclear non-proliferation, 

environmental clean-up technologies, 

alternative fuels, clean energy 

technologies, battery development, 

energy-grid efficiency, green building 

technologies, and other science areas. 

Response: The reasonable SWEIS 

alternatives are those that NNSA 

determined would meet the purpose 

and need presented in Section 1.3 of the 

Final SWEIS. Section 3.5 of the Final 

SWEIS discusses other alternatives that 

NNSA considered in developing this 

SWEIS. Other alternatives were 

considered as suggested by commenters 

during the scoping process and/or 

comment period for the Draft LLNL 

SWEIS. As discussed in Section 3.5, 

those alternatives, were eliminated from 

detailed analysis because they would 

not allow LLNL to fulfill its NNSA 

mission requirements. NNSA believes 

that comment-responses 6–A, 6–C, and 

6–D in the Comment Response 

Document (CRD) in Volume 3 of the 

SWEIS adequately address this issue. 

2. Commenters stated that plutonium 

pit work at LLNL remains opaque and 

requested that NNSA clarify the 

relationship of plutonium operations to 

expanded plutonium pit production. 

Commenters cited concerns with 

increasing the administrative limits for 

plutonium at Building 235 and 

increases in risk and plutonium 

shipments. 

Response: NNSA believes that 

Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final 

SWEIS provides sufficient descriptions 

of the LLNL missions, programs, and 

activities for a reader to understand that 

LLNL conducts activities to meet 

national security requirements to 

maintain and enhance the safety, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 12835 

security, and effectiveness of the U.S. 

nuclear weapons stockpile. To 

accomplish its missions, LLNL conducts 

plutonium-related activities. That has 

been true for more than 70 years and is 

expected to be true for the foreseeable 

future. Plutonium and pit-related 

activities are specifically discussed in 

Chapter 2 and Appendix A of the Final 

SWEIS. NNSA believes that increased 

operations at LLNL, as represented by 

the Proposed Action in this SWEIS, are 

needed for LLNL to meet national 

security requirements to maintain and 

enhance the safety, security, and 

effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear 

weapons stockpile. The proposed 

increase in the administrative limits for 

plutonium at Building 235 would 

maintain the existing facility limit of 

‘‘less than Hazard Category-3’’ in 

accordance with DOE–STD–1027 

revisions approved for use at LLNL. The 

potential impacts associated with 

increasing these administrative limits 

are addressed in Chapter 5 and 

Appendix C of the Final SWEIS. NNSA 

believes that comment-responses 1–B, 

4–E, 9–A, 16–C, 19–A, and 20–F in the 

CRD adequately address this issue. 

3. Commenters stated that the USEPA 

submitted comments on the Draft 

SWEIS with specific recommendations, 

most of which the NNSA disregarded. 

Commenters specifically cited USEPA 

recommendations related to: (a) 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) remedial actions; (b) 

mitigation and best management 

practices (BMP); (c) additional air 

quality monitoring along site perimeters 

at Site 300) to provide real time 

information on criteria pollutants and 

radiological constituents, and (d) 

analysis of impacts to low-income or 

minority populations that might be 

disproportionately impacted by the 

transportation of transuranic (TRU) 

waste both along the route and near the 

disposal sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

Response: Comments from the USEPA 

were specifically considered and 

addressed by NNSA as evidenced by 

comment-responses 24–A, 24–B–1, 24– 

B–2, 24–C, 24–D, 24–E, 24–F, 24–G, 24– 

H, 24–I, and 24–J in the CRD. NNSA 

believes those responses adequately 

address the issues and 

recommendations submitted by the 

USEPA. NNSA also notes the USEPA 

review comments on the Final SWEIS, 

stating that, ‘‘[USEPA] appreciates the 

direct responses to our comments and 

recommendations in the Final EIS.’’ 

(a) Ongoing remedial investigations 

and cleanup activities for legacy 

contamination of environmental media 

at LLNL fall under the CERCLA (42 

U.S.C. 9601). NNSA complies with 

provisions specified in Federal Facility 

Agreements. As presented in the Final 

SWEIS, NNSA is not proposing any new 

CERCLA remedial actions and solutions 

in the SWEIS. NNSA has an ongoing 

Superfund cleanup program for 

contaminated soil and groundwater 

under the CERCLA process. The 

CERCLA process addresses ongoing 

remediation actions, prevention of 

mobilization of contaminants, and 

mitigations and are not repeated in this 

SWEIS. The proposed new facilities and 

DD&D activities would not change this 

ongoing cleanup program. Additionally, 

the CERCLA program is a public process 

as well. Any changes to the CERCLA 

program are negotiated with appropriate 

regulatory agencies before 

implementation. 

(b) Section 5.19 of the Final SWEIS 

contains information on mitigation 

measures. Table 5–74 provides 

examples of design features and 

potential BMPs that could be utilized 

for new projects at LLNL. Sections 

5.19.1–5.19.12 discuss these features 

and BMPs as applicable to the 

environmental resources evaluated in 

the SWEIS. More specific design 

features and BMPs will be identified 

and implemented during the project 

planning phase for any new proposed 

and approved work, and DD&D 

activities. Engineering controls will be 

employed to reduce potential impacts to 

acceptable levels for protection of 

human health and the environment. 

(c) Air quality monitoring along site 

perimeters of Site 300 is established 

with concurrence from appropriate 

regulatory agencies. NNSA believes the 

air monitoring stations at Site 300 are 

adequate and ensure regulatory 

compliance. Surveillance monitors for 

radioactive particulate, tritium, and at 

some locations, beryllium, are well 

established at the perimeter of both 

Livermore Site and Site 300 and at offsite locations. While they are not ‘‘realtime,’’ a quick turnaround in basic 

radionuclide analysis is achievable by 

the analytical labs performing the 

analysis. NNSA produces an Annual 

Site Environmental Report that provides 

details on surveillance monitoring. 

LLNL does not exceed any regulatory 

limits at surveillance locations. 

(d) As described in comment response 

15–B of the CRD, NNSA analyzed the 

potential impacts (including accidents) 

of transporting radioactive materials and 

TRU waste from LLNL to disposal 

facilities. As discussed in Section 

5.11.3.2, under the Proposed Action, 

modeling of all 888 potential offsite 

shipments would yield a bounding 

collective incident-free dose to the 

general public of 24.7 person-rem, with 

an associated increased risk of 0.015 

LCF; and a bounding cumulative 

increased risk of 2.9 × 10¥6 LCF to the 

general public from accidents that result 

in a container breach/release. Based on 

the potential routes to the disposal sites, 

impacts to the minority and low-income 

populations would consist of a fraction 

of the LCF risk presented above. 

4. The USEPA recommends that 

NNSA prepare additional NEPA 

analyses where significant changed 

conditions or new circumstances related 

to site-specific project construction or 

DD&D activities are found to have the 

potential to violate any federal, state, 

and local laws or regulatory limits, or 

increase the potential for adverse 

environmental and human health 

impacts. 

Response: NNSA agrees with the 

USEPA recommendation and will 

prepare NEPA analyses, as appropriate, 

for site-specific project construction or 

DD&D activities (that are not addressed 

in, or exceed, the SWEIS analysis) in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA, regulations promulgated by the 

Council on Environmental Quality, 

DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures 

(10 CFR part 1021), and NNSA Policy 

(NAP) 451.1. 

5. The USEPA stated that it is not 

clear where the Site 300 air quality 

monitor is located and when monitoring 

takes place. The USEPA requests that 

the next National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

report, due June 30, 2024, detail this 

information and include a map of Site 

300. 

Response: The radiological air 

effluent sampling systems and locations 

are provided in Chapter 4, Table 4–9. In 

the next NESHAPs report, NNSA will 

provide additional details on the Site 

300 air quality monitoring and a map of 

Site 300 showing the location of air 

monitors. Air monitoring information is 

also located in Chapter 4 and Appendix 

A of the Annual Site Environmental 

Report (ASER) at https://aser.llnl.gov. 

6. With regard to per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the 

USEPA recommends continued site 

characterization and monitoring of 

drinking water wells, groundwater and 

soil and continued coordination with 

the regional water quality control boards 

and the State Department of Toxic 

Substances Control to control the 

mobilization of these contaminants and 

mitigate impacts. 

Response: NNSA agrees to continued 

site characterization and monitoring of 

drinking water wells, groundwater and 

soil and continued coordination with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
12836 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 2024 / Notices 

the regional water quality control boards 

and the State Department of Toxic 

Substances Control to control the 

mobilization of contaminants and 

mitigate impacts. 

Decision 

The continued operation of LLNL is 

critical to NNSA’s Stockpile 

Stewardship and Management Program, 

to prevent the spread and use of nuclear 

weapons worldwide, and to many other 

areas that may impact national security 

and global stability. NNSA has decided 

to implement the Proposed Action. The 

Proposed Action will enable NNSA to 

fulfill its statutory missions and other 

responsibilities, considering economic, 

environmental, technical, and other 

factors. 

Basis for Decision 

The Final SWEIS provided the NNSA 

decision-maker with important 

information regarding the potential 

environmental impacts of alternatives 

and options for satisfying the purpose 

and need. In addition to environmental 

information, NNSA also considered 

public comments, statutory 

responsibilities, strategic objectives, 

technical needs, safeguards and 

security, costs, and schedule in its 

decision-making. 

Mitigation Measures 

No potential adverse impacts were 

identified that will require additional 

mitigation measures beyond those 

required by regulations, permits, and 

agreements or achieved through design 

features or best management practices. 

However, if mitigation measures above 

and beyond those required by 

regulations, permits, and agreements are 

needed to reduce impacts during 

implementation, they will be developed, 

documented, and executed. Because no 

new potential adverse impacts were 

identified that will require additional 

mitigation measures beyond those 

required by regulation or achieved 

through design features or best 

management practices, NNSA does not 

expect to prepare a Mitigation Action 

Plan. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 8, 2024, 

by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for 

Nuclear Security and Administrator, 

NNSA, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14, 

2024. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03351 Filed 2–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0098; FRL–10582– 

10–OCSPP] 

Certain New Chemicals or Significant 

New Uses; Statements of Findings for 

December 2023 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in 

the Federal Register a statement of its 

findings after its review of certain TSCA 

submissions when EPA makes a finding 

that a new chemical substance or 

significant new use is not likely to 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. Such 

statements apply to premanufacture 

notices (PMNs), microbial commercial 

activity notices (MCANs), and 

significant new use notices (SNUNs) 

submitted to EPA under TSCA. This 

document presents statements of 

findings made by EPA on such 

submissions during the period from 

December 1, 2023, to December 31, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2023–0098, is 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov or in-person at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. For the latest 

status information on EPA/DC services 

and docket access, visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Rebecca Edelstein, New Chemical 

Division (7405M), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 564–1667 

email address: edelstein.rebecca@

epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action provides information that 

is directed to the public in general. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

This document lists the statements of 

findings made by EPA after review of 

submissions under TSCA section 5(a) 

that certain new chemical substances or 

significant new uses are not likely to 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. This 

document presents statements of 

findings made by EPA during the 

reporting period. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to 

review a submission under TSCA 

section 5(a) and make one of several 

specific findings pertaining to whether 

the substance may present unreasonable 

risk of injury to health or the 

environment. Among those potential 

findings is that the chemical substance 

or significant new use is not likely to 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment per TSCA 

section 5(a)(3)(C). 

TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to 

publish in the Federal Register a 

statement of its findings after its review 

of a submission under TSCA section 

5(a) when EPA makes a finding that a 

new chemical substance or significant 

new use is not likely to present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment. Such statements apply 

to PMNs, MCANs, and SNUNs 

submitted to EPA under TSCA section 

5. 

Anyone who plans to manufacture 

(which includes import) a new chemical 

substance for a non-exempt commercial 

purpose and any manufacturer or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1